Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

chevyontheriver said:

Did you by chance watch the video of MacArthur and then Hannagraff? What did you think of what Hannagraff said about the accusation against him? Did he defend himself falsely?

Click to expand...

What accusation did Hanegraff say was made against him?

Hanegraff simply defended the teaching of James.

The problem with "to be not justified through faith alone but through faith which works through love" is that it becomes the meaning of "faith."

"I will show you my faith by my works."

An Orthodox Jew who rejects the person and work of Jesus Christ can make that statement in truth.

"Works through love" becomes the definition of faith.

Not in the NT. . .where what one believes is the definition of faith.
And the only faith that saves in the NT is faith and trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remittance of one's sin.

Works are simply the fruit of saving faith, they are not the faith itself.

If what is believed is that works contribute to justification; i.e., that heaven depends on my performance, that is a perversion of the gospel, and is to be cursed (Gal 1:6-9). . .God forbid that we should take Paul at his word.

"Abraham believed and was justified" (credited with righteousness) in Ge 15:6, some 40 years before
Ge 22, when "he was considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar" (Jas 2:21).

Jas 2:21 is a misconstruing of Ge 15:6, as well as of Paul in Ro 4:1-8.

Abraham had kept no law, rendered no service and performed no ritual that had earned credit to his account before God. His belief in God, who had made promises to him, was credited to him as righteousness, some 40 years before any works "showed his faith."

James seems to view righteousness as something inherent, that God recognized in Abraham
and so he acknowledged it.
That is not what the text states in Ge 15:6--"Abraham believed the LORD and he credited it to him (it was not inherent or earned) as righteousness."

That is contrary to Paul's revelation received from Jesus Christ personally in the third heaven (2Co 12:1-5) that all are born condemned (Eph 2:3) by Adam's sin (Ro 5:18), and must be born again (Jn 3:3, 5) in faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ to receive eternal life (Jn 10:28).

Saint Steven said:

Do you have the words to that Easter prayer. I thought that was an Orthodox thing.

Click to expand...

I couldn't find the Easter Vigil Prayers. I believe that they are part of the Prayers of The Faithful.

As an aside the Catholic teaching of tolerance and accpetance of the faith of others in the Catholic Catechism (in the 800's). The attached book section does a reasonable job of explanation.
this_is_our_faith_-_part_1_ch_9....pdf (jebelalicatechists.com)

chevyontheriver said:

.
For Catholics, sharing in communion is receiving the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. One needs to be careful in doing that as Paul mentioned. There is also a sharing with each other, saying that when we come to this meal we all accept each other in faith. But if someone does not believe the same things, how can they partake of the same meal? Especially if they don't agree on what the meal even is?

Catholics will allow the Orthodox to receive communion, because we believe the same thing. If it's OK with the Orthodox person's bishop, it's OK with us. The differences with Protestants are such that we mostly do not believe the same things, in particular about the Eucharist. So we should not be presenting ourselves as agreeing to what we do not in actuality agree with.

That's a sad thing. And hopefully only a temporary thing. But for now it's real.

Click to expand...

I have found two groupings of Christians that are very different and have much in common with their own group. On this site, we call one Traditional Christianity. I do NOT find that our believes are so different that we should not consider each other part of the same fellowships, although I certainly understand that we should keep our denominations, celebrating our different historical paths.

Traditional Christians believe that there is a Church in addition to their being a church. More relevant here is the Traditional Christians believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

What does "real presence" really mean? How does it work? What are the characteristics. As our priests taught us children, "it's a mystery". Curiously, that is actually a tenet of United Methodist understanding. We believe in the Real Presence, with need for further definition. Traditional Christians include the several that call ourselves Catholic: Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian. Lutherans are traditional Christians, as well some breances of Methodists and some branches of Presbyterians.

Non-traditional or non-mainstream Christians do not believe that Jesus is really present in the eucharist; his presence is symbolic. Also, they reject any universal Church, along with its bishops and other hierarchy.

The Orthodox Church has a much more robust and enduring tradition of anathemization than does Protestantism. Maybe John MacArthur is just trying to catch his denomination up for all those missed millennia of cursing, disfellowshipping and excommunication.

Now why don't they agree to disagree on justification and instead proudly come together over their common hatred of universalism?

Saint Steven said:

This is a discussion. Weigh in.
For the purposes of this OP, John MacArthur is an Evangelical leader, he is representative of Evangelicalism. Agree or disagree?

John MacArthur is attacking Eastern Orthodoxy. Are you okay with that? Is this a manifestation of a true, or false religion?

Click to expand...

I am not ok with an attack that says that Orthodoxy or Catholicism is a false religion. Neither am I ok with someone saying Evangelicalism is a false religion or Mainline Protestantism.

Clare73 said:

Representative? Not quite. . .

If MacArthur is attacking a perverted gospel (Gal 1:7) which requires works for justification, he is in complete agreement with Paul who curses (anathamatizes) those who do so (Gal 1:7-9).

So the question is: is Paul a manifestation of a true, or false religion?

Click to expand...

Such a question is flawed in this setting, as CF rules only allow a positive answer to said question. Attacks on Paul are not allowed in CF or so we are told.

I thought Hank and several others on this thread did a good job of explaining faith and works.

Evangelicalism, if it is true to itself, can not be a religion (true or false). Evangelicalism is a way of being Christian, just as Anglicanism is a way of being Christian.

Dave L said:

James says; “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Paul says; “For we consider that a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law.” (Romans 3:28)

James speaks of genuine faith that works by love. Paul speaks of genuine Faith (that also works by love) apart from the Ten Commandments which cannot save.

Click to expand...

And Paul says:
“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom 2:13

Yes, both of them understand that love is the right motivator for authentic obedience. And obedience of the Ten Commandments can well be works of love as per Rom 13:8-10, such that Jesus can tell the rich young man that he must obey the commandments to gain eternal life. This love is what faith is meant to lead to, because faith opens the door to relationship with God, the very source of love. But faith is not the equivalent of love, meaning that it’s not the equivalent of righteousness. Faith alone, IOW, does not justify and save which is why Paul could also say, in 1 Cor 13,
“...if I have a faith that can move mountains but have not love, I am nothing.”

And Augustine could later say,
“Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing.”

And I can’t help repeating a quote from Basil of Caesarea, a 4th century bishop,
“If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.”

Anyway, people like MacArthur are just plain wrong to put it simply, having taken certain reformed theology to an extreme position, albeit a logical enough one. Wrong doctrine is the cause of divisiveness.

Aussie Pete said:

Just the kind of divisive commentary that the church does not need. God does not have a theological exam to test worthiness to enter heaven. God has a stethoscope. All He checks to see is if you are alive or dead. By this I mean alive in Christ or dead in trespass and sin. There is one church, which is all who are born again. I don't believe that we can ever achieve doctrinal unity. I also do not believe that it matters. Lord Jesus made a simple statement. You must be born again in order to see the Kingdom of God.

Click to expand...

There’s not much reason for revelation, for revealed knowledge, unless that knowledge was important for our understanding the nature and will of God.

Where do we draw the line otherwise? JWs think they have the right understanding of the Christian faith. Are we being unnecessarily devisive by excluding them?

Saint Steven said:

Though I was raised Evangelical, I have moved steadily away from it for most of my Christian life. To the point where I now see it as an exclusionary religion with a militant zeal for a theological platform.

When the church should be facing the world with open arms of acceptance and love, Evangelicalism stands with arms crossed and an off-putting scowl. Which is quite apparent in this video below. Notice the demeanor, purpose and message of these two former friends, John MacArthur and Hank Hanegraff.

What spirit do you discern in these two presentations?

Hank Hanegraff was Chrismated into the Orthodox Church in April 2017. About a month later, his friend John MacArthur, without mentioning Hanegraaff by name, denounced his conversion during a sermon, saying “it is not to be joined, it is to be cursed" because it rejects the doctrine of faith alone. (As a note, MacArthur basically says that knowledge and belief in the doctrine of faith alone is necessary to be saved, which completely undermines his position).

Hanegraaff responds to these criticisms with references to scripture, and elaborates the historical context of doctrinal expression.

As a convert from Evangelical Protestantism, Hanegraaff still hasn’t shed many of his former heterodox presuppositions, and has clear ecuminist tendencies (which I edited out of his response). Nevertheless, given his stature in the media, he has opened a path for many into Orthodoxy, which should be commended; and the mischaracterizations his former colleagues throw at the Ancient Church are just that.

Click to expand...

A few thoughts here:

1) Evangelicalism is a big tent. There are certainly those who believe as MacArthur does, but there are others who are more measured. The issue with MacArthur in that clip seems to be what he thinks Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics believe. Hanegraaff corrected him on that point.
2) Character makes the man. Hanegraaff's response came from his character. However, as you mentioned he became an Eastern Orthodox believer in 2017. He had a long career as an Evangelical teacher long before that. Those years as an Evangelical shaped his character. Yes, there are people who punch holes in the wall and then come to know Jesus and then by the grace of God in their lives, become good people. But I don't have a reason to believe that Hanegraaff went from stand-offish to graceful since his conversion. I believe he already had grace in his heart before that happened. Therefore, if your juxtaposition of these two men is your evidence for Evangelicalism to be this angry and unwelcoming religion and Eastern Orthodoxy to be welcoming, that's not a good position to take.
3) @Lawrence87 hit it on the head earlier when he said there are Eastern Orthodox who have no problems condemning Protestants as heretics. I've seen a bit of it too. What I think this really comes down to is the people that you're comparing. It's safe to say that Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholics all have their fanatics, both in the clergy and in the laity.
4) There's a lot of focus it seems on theological arguments and theories, and not a lot of focus on the ability to understand and assimilate information from outside of those arguments and theories. People who have been to seminary can probably tell you more about it than I could. To a point, you need it - you've got to know the truth to discern it from the darkness - but how narrow do we need to be about it? If people from different theological schools of thought both subscribe to the earliest Christian creeds, can't there be a little more open mindedness? I'm not talking about things like believing that a Hindu can go to Heaven without becoming a Christian first, or accepting homosexual relationships, but rather some of these Calvinist vs. Arminianist debates. This is my opinion as a non-denominational Evangelical, I can take what the Spirit leads me to.
5) Related to the above point, I'd like to see more teachers especially not comment on what they do not know well. I was visiting my grandparent's church several years ago, and the preacher talked a little bit about the Big Bang. He seemed to not know that a Christian postulated the theory, and when the evidence came in that favored it, many atheists had to accept that the universe really did have a beginning. Not knowing things like that in his position during these times is unfortunate at best.
6) I still believe that Evangelicalism is good, but many of us seem to have gotten off-track as opposed to say, 20 years ago. I do feel that we have been more in the crosshairs since about 2004, that is likely a factor. I think more of us needed to react to that better than we did.

fhansen said:

There’s not much reason for revelation, for revealed knowledge, unless that knowledge was important for our understanding the nature and will of God.

Where do we draw the line otherwise? JWs think they have the right understanding of the Christian faith. Are we being unnecessarily devisive by excluding them?

Click to expand...

JW's have no revelation. Revelation is not a function of human intellect, it is God showing truth to us by His Holy Spirit.

Now if the "truth" we believe that we have received is contrary to God's word, then it is false. JW's (Mormons also for that matter) distort God's word to produce a false gospel. The principle of "seek and you shall find" applies to revelation. Of itself, revelation is great but not productive. Only as it becomes a part of our lives is it of any real value.

fhansen said:

And Paul says:
“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom 2:13

Yes, both of them understand that love is the right motivator for authentic obedience. And obedience of the Ten Commandments can well be works of love as per Rom 13:8-10, such that Jesus can tell the rich young man that he must obey the commandments to gain eternal life. This love is what faith is meant to lead to, because faith opens the door to relationship with God, the very source of love. But faith is not the equivalent of love, meaning that it’s not the equivalent of righteousness. Faith alone, IOW, does not justify and save which is why Paul could also say, in 1 Cor 13,
“...if I have a faith that can move mountains but have not love, I am nothing.”

And Augustine could later say,
“Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing.”

And I can’t help repeating a quote from Basil of Caesarea, a 4th century bishop,
“If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.”

Anyway, people like MacArthur are just plain wrong to put it simply, having taken certain reformed theology to an extreme position, albeit a logical enough one. Wrong doctrine is the cause of divisiveness.

Click to expand...

Paul is using obedience to the law as an illustration. Not that we are under the law. The Law was for wicked people forced to obey under threat of death.

If you are born again, love becomes you motive and love fulfills the Law.

“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” 1 John 3:9 (KJV 1900)

“Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” Galatians 5:4 (KJV 1900)

Saint Steven said:

Though I was raised Evangelical, I have moved steadily away from it for most of my Christian life. To the point where I now see it as an exclusionary religion with a militant zeal for a theological platform.

When the church should be facing the world with open arms of acceptance and love, Evangelicalism stands with arms crossed and an off-putting scowl.

Click to expand...

You may not be aware, but Christianity is intrinsically exclusionary.

Many are called but FEW are chosen.

Strait is the gate and narrow the way and FEW there are who find it.

Christianity is not a religion of the many. It is not something for everyone. It is a religion for the few. If you are looking for something "facing the world with open arms of acceptance" you need to look some place else....

Inkfingers said:

You may not be aware, but Christianity is intrinsically exclusionary.

Many are called but FEW are chosen.

Strait is the gate and narrow the way and FEW there are who find it.

Christianity is not a religion of the many. It is not something for everyone. It is a religion for the few. If you are looking for something "facing the world with open arms of acceptance" you need to look some place else....

Click to expand...

Christianity's not a religion. Man makes religion.

If God wants all men to be saved (1 Cor 15:28), and He has the power to do it, who are you to shorten His mighty right arm? His salvation is the alpha and omega, all things renewed in Christ, it's tetelestaied. Why not submit to the eternal assurance of the total victory of Christ?